Before its current term ends this summer,  the Supreme Court will have the potential to reshape U.S. law—and American life—on a host of hot-button issues.

This term, the Court will address questions such as whether the police should be able to access location data from cellphones near a crime scene and whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate on girls sports teams at school. It will also decide whether gun owners need permission to carry guns on private property that’s open to the public and whether states can continue to consider race when creating voting districts.

In addition, the Court will issue several rulings on President Trump’s expansive use of executive power, including an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship and his wide-ranging use of tariffs (See “All About Tariffs” in the November 24, 2025, issue of Upfront).

The Supreme Court will hear several cases that have the potential to reshape U.S. law and American life before the current term ends this summer.

This term, the Court will address several important questions. Should the police be able to access location data from cellphones near a crime scene?  Should transgender girls be allowed to participate on girls sports teams at school?  It will also decide whether gun owners need permission to carry guns on private property that’s open to the public and whether states can continue to consider race when creating voting districts.

In addition, the Court will issue several rulings on President Trump’s expansive use of executive power. This includes the executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship and his wide-ranging use of tariffs. (See “All About Tariffs,” in the November 24, 2025, issue of Upfront.)

Six of the Court’s nine justices are conservative-leaning, and three were appointed by Trump during his first term. Yet it can be difficult to predict how some of the justices will vote in any particular case.

Because the Court has the power to review whether the government’s actions are constitutional, the justices’ decisions are essentially “the law of the land,” says Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. This term, she says, “they’re going to make some important decisions regarding what our Constitution means.”

Here’s a look at five key issues the Court is considering.

Six of the Court’s nine justices are conservative-leaning, and three were appointed by Trump during his first term. Yet it can be difficult to predict how some of the justices will vote in any particular case.

The Court has the power to review whether the government’s actions are constitutional. The justices’ decisions are essentially “the law of the land,” says Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. This term, she says, “they’re going to make some important decisions regarding what our Constitution means.”

Here’s a look at five key issues the Court is considering.

You may not give it much thought, but your cellphone is likely tracking you everywhere you go—and that location data could be used by law enforcement. When police in Richmond, Virginia, were trying to solve a 2019 robbery at a credit union,* they obtained phone location data from Google that told them who was in the area around the time of the crime. Using that data, they charged a man named Okello Chatrie, who eventually pleaded guilty and is now serving prison time.

Chatrie later appealed his conviction, claiming the police’s use of his phone data was a violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” A federal appeals court ruled against Chatrie, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

In their investigation, police used what’s called a geofence warrant. That allows law enforcement to collect cellphone data stored by companies like Google from a specific location and time period.

The key question in the case is whether a search occurred at all. Government lawyers argue that since Chatrie voluntarily shared his location data with Google, he forfeited any expectation of privacy.

Geofence warrants have become increasingly common in recent years. The case will test the constitutional boundaries for the way criminal investigators use new technologies, experts say.

“Law enforcement is increasingly using digital information to get suspect lists and help solve crimes,” says Brent Skorup, a Constitutional law expert at the Cato Institute. “Do we own our digital records that contain our sensitive information? . . . The law is uncertain about this.”

You may not give it much thought, but your cellphone is likely tracking you everywhere you go. Law enforcement could use that location data. When police in Richmond, Virginia, were trying to solve a 2019 robbery at a credit union,* they obtained phone location data from Google. They used that data to determine who was in the area around the time of the crime. Based on that data, they charged a man named Okello Chatrie. He eventually pleaded guilty and is now serving prison time.

Chatrie later appealed his conviction. He claimed the police’s use of his phone data was a violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” A federal appeals court ruled against Chatrie, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Police used what’s called a geofence warrant. That allows law enforcement to collect cellphone data stored by companies like Google from a specific location and time period.

The key question in the case is whether a search occurred at all. Government lawyers argue that since Chatrie voluntarily shared his location data with Google, he gave up his expectation of privacy.

Geofence warrants have become increasingly common in recent years. The case will test the constitutional boundaries for the way criminal investigators use new technologies, experts say.

“Law enforcement is increasingly using digital information to get suspect lists and help solve crimes,” says Brent Skorup, a Constitutional law expert at the Cato Institute. “Do we own our digital records that contain our sensitive information? . . . The law is uncertain about this.”

Lawyers for West Virginia and Idaho and the Trump administration say the sports laws are needed, arguing that transgender girls and women have a competitive edge. Allowing them to compete on girls teams, they say, takes away opportunities for female athletes and reverses five decades of progress for women in sports since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

However the Supreme Court rules, it could affect similar laws passed by 25 other states that ban transgender women and girls from participating on school sports teams that don’t align with their sex at birth.

“On the trans girls’ side, [the argument is] whether they should be effectively denied any opportunity to participate in sports because they are trans,” says David D. Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “And on the state side, it’s whether the state should be permitted to prohibit trans girls across the board, out of a concern for fair competition.”

Lawyers for the states and the Trump administration say the sports laws are needed.  According to the lawyers, transgender girls and women have a competitive edge. Allowing them to compete on girls teams, they say, takes away opportunities for female athletes. They claim it also reverses five decades of progress for women in sports since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

However the Supreme Court rules, it could affect similar laws passed by 25 other states.

“On the trans girls’ side, [the argument is] whether they should be effectively denied any opportunity to participate in sports because they are trans,” says David D. Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. “And on the state side, it’s whether the state should be permitted to prohibit trans girls across the board, out of a concern for fair competition.”

In 2023, Hawaii passed a law that bans concealed firearms on private property open to the public, including restaurants and grocery stores, unless the property owners post signs allowing guns or otherwise give explicit permission. Three Hawaii gun owners and a Hawaii gun rights group sued the state, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms and their ability to protect themselves. A federal district court initially blocked the law’s enforcement, but an appeals court reversed that decision, allowing the law to take effect. The gun owners have asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

“Hawaii is basically saying, ‘We’re just giving business owners . . . the right to exclude people with firearms,’” says Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “[Gun owners] have said, ‘This is infringing upon our right to carry in public.’”

At the heart of the case is a 2022 landmark Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms in public places. It also established a new test for the constitutionality of other gun laws, which requires courts to analyze whether the laws align with states’ and the nation’s history and tradition of gun ownership.

Hawaii’s lawyers argue that the law is consistent with its history of having some of the country’s most restrictive gun laws. The Court’s decision, experts say, could help clarify how the history test is supposed to work. And as the justices consider whether the rights of gun owners or private property owners take precedence in this case, their ruling could determine how far other states can go in restricting gun rights.

Ultimately, Lawrence says, the outcome of the case will dictate whether states can pass laws that, by default, ban concealed weapons in “shopping malls, or restaurants, gas stations­—any number of places we go on a daily basis.”

In 2023, Hawaii passed a law that bans concealed firearms on private property open to the public unless the property owners post signs allowing guns or otherwise give explicit permission. The ban includes restaurants and grocery stores. Three Hawaii gun owners and a Hawaii gun rights group sued the state. They argue that the law violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms and their ability to protect themselves. A federal district court initially blocked the law’s enforcement, but an appeals court reversed that decision. The law went into effect. The gun owners have asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

“Hawaii is basically saying, ‘We’re just giving business owners . . .  the right to exclude people with firearms,’” says Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. “[Gun owners] have said, ‘This is infringing upon our right to carry in public.’”

The case centers on a 2022 landmark Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms in public places. It also established a new test for the constitutionality of other gun laws. The courts must analyze whether the laws align with states’ and the nation’s history and tradition of gun ownership.

Hawaii’s lawyers argue that the law is consistent with its history of having some of the country’s most restrictive gun laws. Experts say the decision could help clarify how the history test is supposed to work. And as the justices consider whether the rights of gun owners or private property owners take precedence in this case, their ruling could determine how far other states can go in restricting gun rights.

Ultimately, Lawrence says, the outcome of the case will determine whether states can pass laws that, by default, ban concealed weapons in “shopping malls, or restaurants, gas stations—any number of places we go on a daily basis.”

The plaintiffs in the case argue that the new congressional voting map is discriminatory and that it’s no longer necessary to weigh race as a factor in redistricting. If the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of voting districts in 14 states, primarily in the South, would be subject to legal challenges.   

“The Voting Rights Act says you can’t dilute [minorities’] votes so they have no power or have lessened power,” says David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Those who are seeking to overturn it would say . . . we’re a different nation than we were in 1965, and we shouldn’t be looking at race at all when it comes to redistricting and voting.”

The plaintiffs in the case argue that the new congressional voting map is discriminatory. They believe that it is no longer necessary to weigh race as a factor in redistricting. If the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of voting districts in 14 states, primarily in the South, would be subject to legal challenges.   

“The Voting Rights Act says you can’t dilute [minorities’] votes so they have no power or have lessened power,” says David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “Those who are seeking to overturn it would say . . . we’re a different nation than we were in 1965, and we shouldn’t be looking at race at all when it comes to redistricting and voting.”

*a nonprofit financial institution that offers banking services

With reporting by Adam Liptak, Ann E. Marimow, and Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times.